Killing the Real Beast
In the comments’ thread responding to Steve Clemons’ post, “Red Planet” earned deservedly high ratings for writing: “I don't see anything that leads me to believe the age of radical conservatism is over. In fact, the undead remain with us -- Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, even Tom Delay are being resurrected. We should never forget that many of the prime movers of the mess we're in have been there, done that before. And were pardoned, rehabilitated and put back in power. How many times has the beast been put down? The defeat of Goldwater. The impeachment of Nixon. The defeat of Bush I, which brought the Reagan-Bush era to a close. Now the defeat of the Republican Congress.”
Which is why it is so critical that the failures of the Bush administration, prompted by Josh’s question, need to be tied to the conservative movement that’s responsible for them. The president isn’t just some renegade incompetent making up mindless decisions as he goes along. Bush was implementing the right’s ideas when he invaded Iraq, when he pushed for privatization of Social Security, and when he politicized FEMA. That Bermuda Triangle of failure was not the consequence of the misjudgment of an individual who was in over his head; he was doing exactly what the conservative movement said ought to be done in all three cases.
Those three failures are an outgrowth of a belief system that denigrates government, international institutions, and the complexities of the world that historical experience demonstrates but which ideologues on the right choose to ignore. The next Republican nominee for the presidency, by embracing conservatism as it has come to be defined, will be endorsing the very same way of thinking and set of ideas that produced the Iraq, New Orleans, and Social Security failures.
Bush can’t run again for the presidency. But because the GOP has become the party of conservatism with next to no room for moderation, its flagbearers from here on out need to be held as responsible for his administration’s failures as he is.
Comments (26)
That Bermuda Triangle of failure was not the consequence of the misjudgment of an individual who was in over his head; he was doing exactly what the conservative movement said ought to be done in all three cases.
I'm going to say this again: I don't think these things are the worst part of the right's agenda -- rather they are the things that were most clumsily handled, because Bush is inept.
Let's look at it another way: would the overall direction the country has taken since 2000 been all that much better had Bush not invaded Iraq (with, I will pointedly add, the support of many on the "left" here); if Katrina had not happened; if the attack on Social Security had been more subtly done (or if Marshall had not started a crusade over the issue)? The voters would certainly not have ejected the Republicans from Congress, and the country would still be sliding towards something many of us would not recognize. We need to stop paying attention to events, and start paying attention to the "big picture," to themes, to direction. This time around the right have been disasters at actually running things, but they excel at constructing themes, at planning and gradualism (look at the Supreme Court), whereas we suck at it. Judging by the obsessive focus on events I've seen in the multitude of threads here, we still haven't learned our lesson. This country will be ripe for Bush II in a decade or two, and maybe that Bush won't have a Katrina (or maybe it will be better handled), or will find a less stupid way of instituting democracy at the barrel of a gun (God knows there are plenty on the left who still like that idea).
Wasn't there more wrong with Bush's presidency than Iraq? Than Katrina? Are we that stupid (or is it something other than stupidity?) that we can't find these things and construct a substantive and politically viable critique of modern conservatism? I'm beginning to doubt it.
December 28, 2006 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That old epigram (George Will?): The Democrats come to town to make the government work; the Republicans come to town to work the government.
December 28, 2006 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, who was to know that the defeat of Goldwater was not the beginning of the Democratic Golden Age, but the end of it? Most 21st Century Americans do not realize that as late as 1900 Americans were still a bit afraid that we would return to monarchy. Democracy was still an experiment and very unusual in the world at that time. Presidents were kept weak because they were the obvious threat.
Monarchies are beloved by aristocracies, but not so well liked by the burghers and peons. These days we tend to call monarchs "totalitarians." Old fashion hereditary monarchs are typically no more than Disneyland monarchs these days (unless you are in Nepal!). Totalitarians at the head of self-appointed oligarchies (modern not-necessarily-hereditary aristocracies) are often short on the skill of knowing oneself (Joe Stalin comes to mind).
Often, the head is less important than the oligarchy, but the image of a UNIFIED HIERARCHY, with UNITARY RULE is critical.
Jefferson, Madison and others suspected that the American Constitution would not last forever. We were at risk of a fall, just like the Athenian democracy. Do we chronicle the rise of the Republican oligarchs? or is there some fight left in our democracy?
December 28, 2006 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you state: "But because the GOP has become the party of conservatism with next to no room for moderation, ..."
Maybe, maybe not. As I have suggested on another posts here, now that the wing-nut Republicans have had the win taken out of their sails (both at the state level -- Minnesota for example -- and the national), we can expect that many weak kneed wing-nuts will be jumping ship and begin flip-flopping towards a safe haven. For example, Governor Tim Pawlenty and Senator Norm any-way-the-wind-blows Coleman (both of Minnesota, already seem to be trying to distance themselves from their wing-nut brethren). Clearly, the rout at the polling this fall has undermined the ability of hard-core wing-nuts to maintain party discipline. We will have the "ill-moderates" of the Rep. Goode ilk speaking their "mind" (waving their flags all over the place), but the weak-kneed are seeing the dark electoral storm clouds (in the form of middle ground voters turning their backs on the righteous-right/free-market "loud mouths"), and this is why the weak-kneed will try to move to the center -- that were the votes are. The problem for them is this: the center has been taken over by progressive Democrats. Certainly, this is the case in Minnesota, both a the state level and at the federal. My Representative elect Keith Ellison (MN CD-5), who is a Wellstone liberal at heart, engages in the rhetoric of moderation. Same is true of our new Representative Tim Waltz (MN CD-1). And same is true of our new U.S. Senator Amy Kloubchar. Tone is important and progressives here in Minnesota have captured the tone of moderation. As you know, Republicans have a problem with moderation, BOTH IN TONE AND IN BEHAVIOR (Goode, for example), and many, many middle ground voters are turned off by the intemperate right and their "wedge issues" issues. The fact that middle ground voters are turned off by the intemperate, loud mouths of the regressive right is evidenced in by the election results of 2006.
(Of course, some districts are more in tune with regressive right than others and some red zones are less red than others (for example, I think a case can be made that North and South Dakota are much less red that an Oklahoma or South Carolina).
To put your idea in different terms" "Because the GOP has become the party of conservatism (intemperate wing-nuts)that has not be able to accept moderation, we should expect that Republican candidates will have a hard time appealing to moderate voters -- with the exception of those weak-kneed wing-nuts who begin flib-flopping to distance themselves from the hard-core right and the failed policies of the Chief Wing-Nut, George W. Bush.
Of course, the problem we might be facing is that so many progressives (at least many who comment in the blog-sphere) are themselves so intemperate (so over the top, so angry, so righhteous) that they are not able to reach out to middle ground voters. Just a thought
Stephen from Minneapolis
December 28, 2006 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Modern conservatism is pro government, so long as government confines its activities to snooping in our bedrooms, monitoring our online activities, scaring the bejeesus out of us with pointless wars on drugs and foreign tyrants, securing our god-given right to foreign oil, easing the burden of profit creation for global corporations, facilitating the conversion of environmental treasures to merchandise and redistributing income from the rest of us to Halliburton.
Modern conservatism is pro job creation, so long as the jobs created are overseas, or, if in America, menial.
Modern conservatism is pro Christian values, so long as the values espoused bear little resemblance to those proposed in that forgotten sermon of Jesus delivered from the side of a mount near the Sea of Galilee.
Modern conservatism is pro democracy, in other countries, provided they do it our way, but not so much here at home.
Modern conservatism is pro law enforcement, so long as it is in a position to enforce the law selectively and interpret it to fit the situation.
Modern conservatism believes in open and honest conversation about the issues, so long as participation in such conversations is restricted to like-minded true believers.
Modern conservatism has enjoyed amazing success in encroaching on our rights, limiting our freedoms, reducing our economic opportunities and diminishing our influence in world affairs. A remarkable record, one we should make them run on. (And by the way, let's don't pretend that modern conservatism is the private domain of Republicans. There are too many Democrats who embrace or, at best, enable their cause, and modern conservatism would not exist without them.)
Modern conservatism is intrusive, judgmental, authoritarian, schizophrenic (i.e. - out of touch with reality), frightened, arrogant, tendentious, petty, vindictive, controlling, abusive, narrow-minded...oh my, I'm running out of adjectives.
These are all observations, mind you, not opinions, and far from a comprehensive list. Surely, somehow, we can find the raw materials needed to begin to fashion a critique.
December 28, 2006 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Franken: Conservatives run for office on the theory that government doesn't work. Then they get into office and prove it.
December 29, 2006 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Al Franken: Conservatives run for office on the theory that government doesn't work. Then they get into office and prove it.
I believe that was P.J. O'Rourke.
December 29, 2006 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't find a good original source. Maybe Al and P. J. both stole it.
December 29, 2006 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Monarchies are beloved by aristocracies, but not so well liked by the burghers and peons.
Historically, that's backwards. Monarchs, whether in medieval Europe, the ancient world or the Far East, were generally opposed by the nobility, whose wings they tended to clip. And kings often allied themselves with the middle classes and even the lower classes as a means of curtailing the power of aristocracy and (in Europe at least) the power of the clergy too. the Hellenistic monarchies of the Greek world and the Roman principate were both founded with the full support and gratitude of bourgeois folks longing for a strong ruler to put an end to the brutal quarrels of the elite classes. And don't assume such a thing could not happen in America: given sufficient upheaval and calamity our common folk too might support a powerful, dioctatorial but populist even rather liberal-leaning "First Citizen" to put things back to rights.
Re; These days we tend to call monarchs "totalitarians."
Most past monarchies were not totalitarian because they were fenced about with all sorts of traditions and unwritten laws limiting their power -- and also by the competition for power from the nobility and the clergy. Some exceptions exist, like the first Chinese emperor, Shih Huang Ti, or Nero and Caligula, or the Mad Caliph Hakim II, but these folks were hated in their own day and remembered with loathing by history.
December 29, 2006 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree with the author that Bush's failures must be tied to "conservatism" generally because he has tried to put their ideas into place as policy. But the key here is to remember why, despite Watergate and Nixon's resignation, despite all the other scandals and crimes committed by conservatives in the name of their rotten cause we still see them so strong on the scene. One of the most important factors is that when we get those scumbags on the mat with our boot on their neck we always ALWAYS let them up and usually in the name of "healing" or bringing the nation together, etc... This time it needs to be made clear that we crush them and then wave the bloody shirt for as long as we can to keep them down and out where they belong. This is what the New Dealers did to the Republicans and it worked for half a century. It's time we reasserted ourselves and kick the living shit out of them over and over and over and never let them open their mouths without reminding voters just who they are, what they truly support and that they don't care one bit about the common man or woman. Then we can rest easy, but not before.
December 29, 2006 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can argue the history as much as you like. Your second comment has no relation to what I said. I didn't say historical monarchs were totalitarians. Your comment, however, depends on your cultural perspective.
As to your first comment, it is undoubtedly true that some monarchs could use the people against the aristocrats. However, one does not find the people in the monarch's court. A war here or an uprising there does not constitute the large motion of history. And, there are just a few monarchs who didn't do too well in the hands of their people. Marie Antoinette and Nicholas Romanov come to mind.
December 29, 2006 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, you stated:
"It's time we reasserted ourselves and kick the living shit out of them over and over and over and never let them open their mouths without reminding voters just who they are, what they truly support and that they don't care one bit about the common man or woman.
I wonder whether temperament displayed in your remarks is a reflex of the actual kind of behavior you are prescribing.
If so, it is a prescription for disaster. Those successful Democratic candidates who defeated incumbent Republicans were successful in part because that ran with largely positive, up-beat campaign messages. Successful Democrats were not uncritical; however, their tone was largely one of moderation (in contrast to the intemperate tone of the wing-nuts). (If you have evidence to the contrary, please let met know, thanks.)
Even my representative elect Keith Ellison of MN CD-5 (who ran as a Wellstone Liberal and who will probably be one of the most liberal members of congress) ran a campaign that was both moderate in tone and thoroughly up-beat. His campaign theme was "peace" -- but not just in Iraq. What he is talking about was also "peace" in the way we treat our opponents. He role-modeled what he truly believes by the way he responded to wing-nut Goode's nasty remarks.
I, myself, agree with Keith's approach for a number of reasons not the least of which is the fact that middle ground voters who turned to Democrats in significant numbers in 2006 were turned off by the intemperate, loud mouths of the regressive right.
From your post, it seems that your are advocating a "smash mouth" approach to politics. While such an approach might address one's cathartic needs, it would do little to address the progressive agenda. Of course, this agenda should include a hard-nose investigation of the multiple failures of not only the Bush administration (the worst administration in history) but also of the intellectual incompetence of the regressive right and its spokespersons. This investigation should be analytic, factual, and dispassionate -- "letting the truth speak for itself" so to speak, no matter how ugly that truth might be. I would hope that this investigation(s) take place in various congressional committees (and that investigations fully covered by the press). Again, they should be hard-nosed, but dignified and should take place over an extended period of time -- "peel the onion slowly".
The smash mouth rhetoric that you seem to be recommending would only be a distraction for the truth telling that is so necessary. That's my view for what its worth
Stephen from Minneapolis
December 29, 2006 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyway, it's true! Listen to the quotes they love to drag out from Ronald Reagan (which I won't bother to bore us with here). Will we see this as a political sign, or bumper sticker? DOUBTFUL, but why?
Jan Knaus
December 29, 2006 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course, the problem we might be facing is that so many progressives (at least many who comment in the blog-sphere) are themselves so intemperate (so over the top, so angry, so righhteous) that they are not able to reach out to middle ground voters. Just a thought"
Yeah nobody will vote for an angry man, you can't oppose a popular war time President. Friend if you were not angry in the runup to the war, if you were not using intemperate language in reference to the President you simply were not paying attention.
Now some would argue that the reason the President's numbers moved from the high eighties to the mid thirties is because people just woke up. Well they wouldn't have woken up if some angry people hadn't taken some lazy mendacious people to the woodshed.
The war supporters generally launched a lot of hateful rhetoric our way, we were traitors, we were objectively pro-terrorist, we hated America. Oddly enough some of us got upset and I dare say a little intemperate. And a bunch mushyheads and concern trolls alike advised up that we would never get anywhere unless we toned it down. Which strategy got us thumped in 2002 and 2004. The reason people like Ellison were able to campaign on 'peace' is that other people fought the battles to make 'peace' a position that politicians dared to take.
I don't do a lot of Buck Fushing these days, but I don't regret a single word I uttered back in the hottest days on dKos in late 2002 and early 2003. Generally speaking the Democratic Party split between the "Wouldn't be Prudent" DLC types and the "Dirty Fucking Hippy" Digby/Billmon types. I was and am proud to stand with the DFH.
You want righteous? If people had listened to me and DFHs like me thousands of American soldiers would not be dead today, God damn right I am feeling righteous.
December 29, 2006 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: And, there are just a few monarchs who didn't do too well in the hands of their people. Marie Antoinette and Nicholas Romanov come to mind.
Neither were executed by their "people", but rather by small bands of fanatics that had takne advantage of social chaos to seize power. In fact, the Romanovs were not really executed at all (at least Louis XVI and Marie Antomniette had a trial); they were simply murdered in cold blood.
Re: However, one does not find the people in the monarch's court.
Historically, one generally does find this, except when gross incompetence and stupidity (always a danger with inbred royalty) led to public disaster.
There's a reason autocrats come to power and then hold onto it. They solve real problems (however high-handedly) and are generally popular. Long-term their inbred, isolated heirs may make a botch of things, but at first, as even Aristotle admitted, a capable and gifted king is better than any democracy.
December 29, 2006 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You state:
Bruce, you stated: "The reason people like Ellison were able to campaign on 'peace' is that other people fought the battles to make 'peace' a position that politicians dared to take".
What's your evidence. Keith Ellison is from my district (MN CD 5) and I know were is support came from and who "fought the battles". Those on "the front lines" were persons from a wide variety of peace organizations here in Minneosta (including, I dare say, Grandmothers for Peace -- some of whom may have been hippies). The are not your DLC type. Members of these anti-war peace organizations were outfront, early on protesting the war. What they did not do is to engage in the kind of intemperate "smash mouth" rhetoric you seem to be recommending.
In your claim you seem to be implying that other people like you (who engaged in the intemperate "smash mouth" angry,in your face rhetoric made it possible for Kieth be successful on a "peace platform". I expect that I might be seeing him next week and I will make it a point to ask him. However, I already know enough about his campaign that I say with some certainty that he would view the intermperate (rigthious) rhetoric you seem to favor as counter-productive to laying the groundwork for any anti-war (peace) candidate. Perhaps you have some evidence for how a steady stream of intermprant smash mouth behavior is effective in winning the hearts and minds of voters. If so, I would be curious to know. Thanks
Stephen from Minneapolis (sorry, didn't have time for spell check)
December 30, 2006 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm usually all for reason and compromise, but it's important to remember the New Right/religious right/wingnuts/real pricks/etc. HATE us. And by us, I mean not just progressives, "liberals," leftover 60s folk, etc. I mean a huge swath of the American population, in fact a considerable majority. My concerns may be overblown, but I think at least some of the people we like to swear at on this blog aren't playing smashmouth. They're out to smash our heads. Literally.
December 30, 2006 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
hoosiertransplant
You say: "They're out to smash our heads. Literally."
I would suggest what ever "they" (meaning the regressive wing-nuts) may have wanted to do, they have really succeeded in is alienating many, many the "middle-ground" voters. This alienation is evidence in the election results where even in conservative MN CD-1, a progressive anti-war liberal (Tim Waltz) was elected. Here in Minnesota, evidence is also found in the fact that this fall (2006) our Democrats (DFLers) pick-up 19 seats in the Minnesota House.
Middle-ground voters have been becoming more and more turned off by the failure of the Minnesota wing-nuts to address the basic "let's-get-the-job-done" issues such as public education funding, healthcare cost and coverage, transportation (grid-lock), property-taxes, and environmental protection.
Middle-ground voters have also been becoming more and more turned off by the Republican wig-nut over the top nasty and negative political rhetoric. My claim is support by the fact that even though in attempted to stave off a Democratic romp, the Minnesota GOP funded multiple (and I am told often dishonest) attack mailings targeting select DFLer candidates running in what were thought to be competitive races for the Minnesota house, the DFL candidate won almost every race -- in districts that had been GOP save havens. Again, whereas the Minnesota GOP (control entirely by the wing-nut faction) ran negative "smash them in the head" (to use your phrase campaigns) and push the wedge issues (gay marriage for example), the DFL candidates ran positive let's-get-the-job-done campaigns and ran right through the wing-nuts divisive rhetoric.
So, the fact of the matter it was, to use your terms, the wing-nut faction "whose heads got smashed".
What I would argue is the what Democrats should do is to began looking at "best practices" so that they can build an even better playbook in 2008.
(A parenthetical note, from by own experience and what I have heard from the ground is that Dean's 50 state strategy (as "operationalized" by field workers assigned to congressional districts) were ineffectual and even counter-productive (and sometimes arrogant) and of little or no value to DFL candidates running for the Minnesota House and Senate. Part of these field-workers problem seems to have been what I would call a myopic focus on voter ID whereas the real focus should have been on "relationship building" which is what most DFL House and Senate candidates did through grass roots door knocking campaigns. I would argue that "relationship building" his how both Senator elect Amy Klobuchar and First District Congressman Tim Waltz were able to win (though at this level, grass roots door knocking was not the primary vechile for "relationship building".
One last note. In 2004, a number of DFL house candidates won close elections (by 1% or 2%) to capture seats that had been held by Republicans. This year (2006), these same DFL candidates increased the margin of victory (often up to 10% or more). I would suggest this "progressive" movement away from the regressive wing-nuts (and those who caucus with them) is happening in many areas of the country and this progressive movement will continue. I think the perception of the middle ground voters is that the wing-nuts are perhaps just a little "nuts".
This is how I view the political landscape from here in Minneapolis
Stephen
December 30, 2006 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need to be very careful about writing all these obits. The R's are very good at winning & winning even when they didn't win. The margins of victory in Va & MO just to name two were like, 5 votes . . . if we hadn't pulled those out, imagine what the talking heads on this blog would be writing about? I'm so happy we are not, but we need to be realistic about what happened and not be arrogant. This is about money and power and they are a lot meaner than we are, because, well, WWJD when he looses Congress?
December 30, 2006 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comment on Dean's 50-state strategy. There was some concern here in Missouri but our Supreme Court declared our Voter ID requirement unconstitutional shortly before the election. It would have been a mess and I know materials were in the process of being prepared so voters the Dems contacted here would have some guidance. None was needed and a very real mess was adverted.
Since I've been in Missouri, I've found a complete lack of Democratic local and state party organization. Apparently it has functioned in the past through the union activism. There is still a strong union presence but with declining union membership, our state and local folks need to determine how to get activists and keep them.
I didn't see that as a problem with Dean, but a problem with the local and state organization.
December 31, 2006 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Puh-leeze, get some stats on Missouri before making that sort of statement. Carnahan (D) who held the Senate office lost to Talent (R) in 2002 49.8% to 48.6% or 22,586 votes. In 2006, McCaskill (D) won that Senate office from Talent by 49.6% to 47.3%, or 48,314 votes. Turnout was significantly higher--total of 1,845,604 voted in the 2002 Senate race while in 2006, it was 2,062,196...still below a Presidential election but significantly higher than "normal" midterms.
It may not be the percentages any of us really want to see, but it is a significant improvement. It wasn't nearly the squeaker that Virginia was.
December 31, 2006 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he meant MT.
December 31, 2006 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
az5762
You say its about money and power.
NOT ALWAYS AND NOT NECESSARILY
Remember WELLSTONE? He ran a "Green Bus" grassroots campaign with little money and defeated an incumbent big bucks senator.
Remember JESSE VENTURA? He ran a Jesse-the-Thinker grassroots campaign with little money and as an independent defeated the Democrat and Republican candidates, both of whom had much deeper pockets.
Remember in 2006, DFL pick up 19 seats in the state house and they all ran grassroots "relationship building campaigns whereas the Republicans candidates relied (a) negative "bulk mailing" campaigns (funded by the state GOP) and (b)the GOP state data base for their GOTV efforts.
Issue oriented, positive grassroots "relationship building" campaigns trumped money, negativity, wedge issues and the famed GOP GOTV machine.
Yes, money is important. But it is not end all and be all.
By the way, this is how a George McGovern, Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, Stephenie Herseth, Byron Dorgan and others win at the congressional levels in so called red-hot states like the Dakotas.
Stephen from Minneapolis
December 31, 2006 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well,
I appreciate people responding to my post. And yes, I think I meant to put MT. What I was trying to get across, and did so poorly, was that I don't think there has been some huge sea-change in the way people will vote or that the right is dead. There were many close races and a marginal shift, particularly in the senate races, would have left us with a much different result. Yes, Bush sucks, the national Republican Party apparatus is run by Christian fascists who obviously interned with the Taliban and at Enron but people will still vote for them. We have Conyers, Murtha, Jefferson who have problems and Reyes who doesn't know what he's doing. I simply think we have a lot people on our side who are off to the races with some monumental re-alignment thing. I just don't think it happened. I'm no rocket scientist, but much of our electorate is stupid, xenophobic and rejects science and another portion is too lazy to vote except when the see the House leadership protecting a pedophile. I'm queer and Foley makes me sick. I think he was a major part of what drove people to say wtf and vote Dem. I'm rambling a bit and new to this posting thing. I hope this is useful even if no one agrees with me.
December 31, 2006 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hoosier, this might be the most un-informed post I've read. A lot of Democrats are religious too. I've spent considerable time in the Katrina-hit areas and i can tell you these evangelical "religious fanatics" are carrying about half of the rebuilding effort down there. I was amazed at the volunteers from all over the world that came through their church affiliations to help out. Did you know the very conservative Southern Baptists have the 2nd largest relief organization behind the Red Cross? They were bringing in truckloads of supplies every day. If you talk to the "common folks" down there they will have nothing but praise for the religious organizations. Whatever negative impact you may perceive they have, I would argue their positive impact on American society far outweighs that by a huge margin.
February 4, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoosier see my post below
February 4, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink